HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - STATUS CITY DMS (2)NEW BUSINESS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
IUEL�!
March 26, 1996
City Manager Approval 7�i_r
Item to be presented by:
Ken Pulskamp
STATUS OF CITY DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SYSTEM (DMS)
Community Development
The City Council has received a letter dated January 21, 1996, from the Santa Clarita
Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) that stated that the City has been remiss
in its implementation of a Development Monitoring System (DMS) as called for in the City's
General Plan. A DMS provides a computerized assessment of infrastructure impacts upon six
public services; water, sewerage, schools, libraries, fire and roads.
The main City General Plan policy supporting the creation of a DMS is Policy 1.4 of the Public
Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element of the General Plan which states "Using such records
as described in Policy 1.3, design and implement a development monitoring system (DMS) to
evaluate the individual and cumulative impact of existing and proposed development on the
service capacity of public services, facilities, and utilities, and use the results from the DMS to
mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements and development requirements." The letter
states that Santa Clarita Valley residents outside the City have better infrastructure attention
than those within the City because the County has a DMS and the City does not. The SCOPE
letter requests that the City begin implementation of a DMS by June 1996.
The City does not have a formal computerized DMS, but rather has a development review
process whereby each development application is reviewed individually and conditioned on a
case-by-case basis. The concern with a computerized DMS is that, once implemented, the
results become both the minimum and the maximum obligation. Another drawback is that the
County DMS has proven a battleground for legal challenges to developments.
Another aspect of the SCOPE letter is the charge that the City has not been implementing its
twenty year General Plan. To assess the infrastructure and funding needs, the City is presently
in the process of preparing a Long Range Financial Plan and an Infrastructure Master Plan
which are both due for completion in December 1996. A Transit Master Plan is under
preparation and is anticipated to be completed in May 1996. A Parks Master Plan including a
Trails Element has been completed and was adopted by the City Council in December 1995.
Over a million dollars has been spent so far on determining the long-term City infrastructure
Continued To:
needs.
A memorandum to the City Manger analyzing the issue of a City Development Monitoring
System is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends the Following Actions:
1. Direct staff to prepare an assessment of the vacant land available in the City for
development.
2. Direct staff to meet with the community to find out what they feel our development
monitoring needs are.
3. Return to the Council later this year in a Study Session following collection of the above
information and after completion of the Infrastructure Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT
Memorandum to George Caravalho dated March 13, 1996 concerning a City DMS
SCOPE Letter Dated January 21, 1996
s:\cd\council\dmsar l.lhs
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO George Caravalho, City Manager
FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager
DATE: March 13, 1996
SUBJECT: Status of the City Development Monitoring System (DMS) in response to the
SCOPE letter to the City Council dated January 21, 1996
SCOPE Letter
The City Council has received a letter dated January 21, 1996, from the Santa Clarita
Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) that stated that the City has been remiss
in its implementation of a Development Monitoring System (DMS) as called for in the City's
General Plan. A copy of the SCOPE letter is attached. A DMS provides a computerized
assessment of infrastructure impacts.. The main General Plan policy supporting the creation
of a DMS is Policy 1.4 of the Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element of the General
Plan which states "Using such records as described in Policy 1.3, design and implement a
development monitoring system (DMS) to evaluate the individual and cumulative impact of
existing and proposed development on the service capacity of public services, facilities, and
utilities, and use the results from the DMS to mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements
and development requirements." The letter states that Santa Clarita Valley residents outside
the City have better infrastructure attention than those within the City because the County has
a DMS and the City does not. The SCOPE letter requests that the City begin implementation
of a DMS by June 1996.
The purpose of this memo is to provide information about the County DMS, to apprise the City
Manager on the City's development review process, to identify City General Plan
implementation efforts and to provide an analysis of the pros and cons of'a DMS.
Los Angeles County DMS
The County DMS was instituted as a result of a lawsuit against the County in order to ensure
that infrastructure will be available to serve new development. It is used as a tool by County
planners to determine how to condition projects to pay for the infrastructure impacts associated
with each project. The DMS is used to assess infrastructure impacts upon six public services -
water, sewerage, schools, libraries, roads and fire. Of these infrastructure needs, sewerage,
libraries, roads and fire services are County -provided. While City residents receive services
addressed by the DMS, none of these services are provided by the City with the exception of
roadway development. The City sends copies of all large City projects to the County Regional
Planning Department for inclusion on the County DMS list of projects for use in determining
cumulative impacts upon these County services that also benefit City residents.
While not computerized, the County and the City both assess subdivision impacts upon park
facilities through Quimby Act standards that are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City and
County also share some Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts (BTDs) to pay for needed roadway
improvements. The City is also part of a joint agreement with the Los Angeles County Fire
Department to charge uniform fees to pay for construction of fire facilities throughout the
County, including facilities to serve Santa Clarita.
Environmental review is another important component of the DMS in assessing the future
impacts of development and in identifying methods to reduce those impacts. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be
prepared for major projects resulting in significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than
significant levels. Under the County development review process, a developer, with the
agreement of the Department of Regional Planning, contracts directly with an EIR consultant
to provide an assessment of a major development. Since the project EIR is the main document
for identifying environmental impacts and the methods to mitigate them, the presence of a DMS
may give balance and credit to the EIR document that may otherwise be suspect.
One of the reasons that the DMS is critical to the County planning is that their planners do not
visit every site that is proposed for development and are not necessarily familiar with the Santa
Clarita Valley. It is not unreasonable to assume that County planners who work downtown,
have never seen proposed project sites, and are unfamiliar with the Santa Clarita Valley would
be deficient in providing conditions to adequately meet valley infrastructure needs without the
aid of a computerized system. The County development monitoring process is designed for
planning at a distance. It is this distance aspect that provides a fundamental difference
between the character of regional planning in the County and local planning in the City.
City Development Review Process
The City does not have a formal computerized DMS, but rather has a development review
process whereby each development application is reviewed individually and conditioned on a
case-by-case basis. Each site is visited by planners upon receipt of an application and prior to
determining project impacts. Each project is reviewed for compliance with City codes and with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ,A). As part of the development review process,
the City sends copies of development proposals to local service providers including water
purveyors, the trash purveyors, the Sanitation District, the Sheriffs Department, the Fire
Department, the Gas Company, the school districts, and others. Comments from these outside
agencies are included in the drafting of project mitigation measures and conditions of approval.
Unlike the County, City planners hire consultants directly to produce EIRs and identify
mitigation measures. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval are added so that each
development "pays as it goes" in order to mitigate development impacts upon the public
infrastructure. Since the Santa Clarita Valley has an infrastructure deficit and by law a
developer can only be required to pay to mitigate his own impact, neither the City's case-by-case
tailored approach to development review nor the County's computer "black -box" approach will
be able to "fix" the infrastructure deficit of the Valley. Regardless of the presence of a DMS, the
City and County will only be able to solve the infrastructure deficit through public and private
cooperation and investment, not merely through developer exactions.
Pros and Cons to the City Development Process
The advantage to the City development process is that it allows flexibility in mitigating impacts.
Emphasis may be placed on the infrastructure issues of greatest local concern with the case-by-
case approach. City planners and Planning Commissioners are familiar with the Santa Clarita
Valley and sites proposed for development which is a decided advantage over County planners,
particularly in determining local development impacts. This present City development
processing system provides the ability to individually assess relative infrastructure impacts, and
it has allowed the City to obtain mitigation far above that gained by the County. The drawback
is that some infrastructure impacts, especially for those services not provided by the City, may
be inadvertently overlooked and remain unmitigated.
Pros and Cons of the County Development Monitoring System (DMS)
The concern with a computerized DMS is that, once implemented, the results become both the
minimum and the maximum obligation.. There is little room for flexibility. While this may be
adequate for smaller development projects, limiting the scope for discretion may reduce the
ability of the City to obtain the levels of mitigation the City has received in the past on larger
scale projects. Another drawback is that the County DMS has proven a battleground for legal
challenges to developments. Should the City institute a DMS; a similar City liability would
exist. A final concerns the way the County writes conditions of approval based upon DMS
information. Conditions are often written to apply to a project only in the case that a fund
would be created. As an example "Developer agrees to pay his fair share if a library district is
created." This often results in no mitigation whatsoever.
Cost is another factor in the running of a DMS. In addition to software and hardware, there is
the data gathering and long-term maintenance and staff training aspect of the DMS. Once
installed, it would be incumbent upon the City to keep an up-to-date DMS to avoid a challenge
on its accuracy; This would pose a long-term financial burden to the City.
Other DMS Concerns
Would a City DMS solve the perceived problem with new development, namely the potential for
new development to impact the existing infrastructure system? In the case of the Santa Clarita
Valley, it is not potential new development within the City that is of greatest concern, but
rather the great potential that exists in the County. The vast majority of developable land is
located in, and under the control of, the County of Los Angeles. Where the County DMS has
been unable to adequately address infrastructure impacts, imposing a like City DMS on the
limited developable area in the City is not likely to obtain different results. The City has
already received better results than the County under the present City development process.
It has been put forth that the reason some developers seek to annex and develop in the City is
due to the City's lack of a DMS. This reasoning is questionable since the City has more
stringent development standards and approves lower densities than the County which would
more than offset the cost of DMS mitigation. This is especially true considering the City's
development record that requires mitigation, as well. Perhaps a better explanation for the
attraction of the City is the processing timeframes. A typical conditional use permit request
takes eight months to a year to process under the County, where an identical request would
take two to threemonths in the City.. Time savings between City and County projects are
equally applicable to the building permit process.
City General Plan Implementation
Another aspect of the SCOPE letter is the charge that the City has not been implementing its
twenty year General Plan. To assess the infrastructure and funding needs, the City is presently
in the process of preparing a Long Range Financial Plan and an Infrastructure Master Plan
which are both due for completion later this year. A Transit Master Plan is under preparation
and is anticipated to be completed in May 1996. A Parks Master Plan including a Trails
Element has been completed and was adopted by the City Council in December 1995. Over a
million dollars has been spent so far on determining the long-term City infrastructure needs.
Other activities undertaken to assess infrastructure needs include the Joint City -County Traffic
Model for the Santa Clarita Valley. The City Stormwater Utility is currently in the process of
creating a geographic information system (GIS) to map the City. The Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) is also developing a GIS for regional planning
implementation that will be compatible with the City's system and will eventually improve
regional cooperation in planning. All of the former activities are included as implementation
policies and features of the City's General Plan. These activities are also the necessary first
step toward assessing existing and future infrastructure needs in the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following actions be undertaken:
1) An assessment of the vacant land available in the City for development should be
prepared. This study should identify City land availability based upon existing zoning.
The purpose of this study is to have baseline data by which to analyze the build -out
potential within the City. This baseline data would also be a critical link for identifying
the potential for new development impacts upon City infrastructure.
2) Staff should meet with the community to find out what they feel our development
monitoring needs are. Public participation in identifying these issues will identify
options for future policy development and actions.
3) Baseline data to identify the City infrastructure needs is under preparation as the City
Infrastructure Master Plan project, due for completion later this year. The issue of
General Plan implementation should be revisited following the preparation of this
critical long-range infrastructure plan so that there will be accurate data for discussion
of infrastructure deficits and needs.
s:\cd\council\dmsmemo 1.1hs
21 January 1996
SCOPE
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the
Environment
To Promote, Protect and Preserve the Environment, Ecology and
Quality of Life in the Santa Clarita Valley
P.O. Box 1182, Santa Clarita, CA 91386
City of Santa Clarita City Council
Santa Clanta City Hall
23920 West Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Ref. General Plan Mandate for a Development Monitoring System
Honorable Council Members:
Policy 1.4 of the Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element of Santa Clarita's General
Plan states:
"Using such records as described in Policy 1.3, design and implement a development
monitoring system (DMS) to evaluate the individual and cumulative impact of existing and
proposed development on the service capacity of public services, facilities, and utilities, and
use the results from the DMS to mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements and
development requirements," [City of Santa Clarita General Plan]
Other General Plan policies making reference to a DMS include the following
Land Use Element, Policy I.1:
"Develop and implement a Public Facilities Ordinance that requires adequate infrastructure
exist or be programmed for construction within a defined period of time as a condition of
development approval. "
Land Use Element, Policy 1.3;
"Prepare an annual growth monitoring report to the community that includes the status of all
projects, the status of capital improvements for roads, sewers, water, schools and libraries, and
a status report on development trends in the Valley, "
Land Use Element, Policy IA:
"Study the feasibility (including, but not limited to housing and land use) ofan Annual Growth
Policy that provides guidelines for the determination of the adequacy of Public Facilities and
allows the City to set appropriate levels of development consistent with all General Plan goals
and policies. "
Land Use Element, Policy 1.5:
"Utilize computer modeling to assess cumulative impacts ofdevelopment on public facilities. "
LETTER TO om CoLNCI CONCERVDIc DMS
Land Use Element, Policy 7.1.
"Ensure demand for public facilities and services does not exceed the ability to provide and
maintain such facilities and services; necessary facility improvements should precede or be
coordinated with future development.
Land Use Element, Policy 7,8'
"Utilize computer modeling and Capital Improvement Programming to assist in monitoring
growth, development and the public services and infrastructure necessary to accommodate such
development. "
Economic Development & Community Revitalization Element, Policy 2.1:
"Monitor on an on-going basis (annually) the extent and location of development and changes
occurring within the planning area in order to measure the degree to which needed balance
between land uses allocated in the General Plan is maintained. "
Economic Development & Community Revitalization Element, Policy 2.5:,
"Coordinate the timing of development with the phased provision of local infrastructure,
including• arterial roadway development; wastewater treatment capacity, plants and expansion,
water supply districts and extensions; county roadwayibridge assessment districts; allocations
of utility/pipeline,communications franchises within the planning area; adequate school
facilities: fire station facifines, parks and trails; and public facilities. "
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element, Policy 1.1:
"Determine service standards and cooperate with providers for each of the following services,
facilities, and utilities servicing City residents roads; solid waste collection, conversion,
reduction and disposal; communication services (limited to cable television franchises); law
enforcement; fire protection; and day care programs. "
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element, Policy 1.2:
"Work with service providers to determine standards for the following regulated utilities and
services; water supply and treatment; sewage collection and treatment; storm drains/flood
control; natural gas; electricity, schools,; libraries,- hospitals; ambulance; paramedics -
communication services (other than cable television franchises); solid waste collection,
conversion, reduction and disposal.
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element, Policy 1.3;
"Establish and maintain a record of the capacity, utilization, and availability of the above-
mentioned [Policy 1,1 & 1.2] services, utilities, andfacilities serving the planning area'
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element, Policy 1.5:
"Require that new developments be prohibited or delayed unless necessary public services and
utilities will be available at the time of occupancy or will be provided within a reasonable
period of time as part of an adopted improvement plan. "
Portions of Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.12, L14, 1.15, and 1.18 of the Public Services, Facilities, and
Utilities Element [not presented for brevity]
As you can gather, the need for a DMS is woven throughout many policies and elements of the
General Plan. It is not a matter which was presented in passing.
LETTER To Crn" CoL� CR. CovCER.,'L:G DMS
Santa Clarita adopted the General Plan in June of 1991. Five years agol! And the citizens of
Santa Clanta still do not enjoy the protection which a DMS would offer - to ensure that new
development does not overwhelm our infrastructure. Despite the fact that the various Policies cited
above call for adopting a DMS..
Los Angeles County has a DMS which applies to the unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita
Valley. It's a good system on paper, but has been administered in a somewhat haphazard fashion
by county decision -makers. Where administration has been haphazard, organizations - such as
SCOPE - have been able to successfully litigate controversial projects because of failure to comply
with the county DMS.. SCOPE has won on these issues, and, as a result, DMS -compliance is now
given more attention by county planners.
The City of Santa Clarita was formed, in part, because local residents felt that the county was
ignoring the impacts of growth on our infrastructure. It's ironic, but SCV residents outside of the
city now have better infrastructure attention than those within the city. All due to the fact that,
over the last five years, City Council has yet to adopt a DMS ordinance!
In SCOPE's opinion, the 'grace period' has expired, and we task City Council to adopt a city
DMS system by June..
Any governmental entity - county or city - which adopts a General Plan and then fails to
implement the policies of that General Plan, is guilty of faulty planning, and is at risk to have all
land -use decisions overturned. A General Plan is not a 'paper tiger' which can be ignored or never
implemented. All policies delineated in the General Plan should, where indicated, be backed by
city ordinances which implement and enforce those policies.
For example, the General Plan recognized the need to preserve significant ridgelines; and the
Council adopted a Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance. The General Plan has policies to reduce
signage clutter, and the Council adopted a Signage Ordinance. Why no DMS ordinance? Five (5)
years should have been sufficient time to consider such a measure!
The situation is especially of concern when annexations are considered:
A development project is in an unincorporated area - under county jurisdiction - but is
considering annexing to the city, Under the county DMS, library mitigation fees are
required. Santa Clarita has no DMS, and has no established library fee. Would you, Mr.
Developer seeking a profit, choose to stay with the county, or annex to the city?
A Santa Clarita DMS Ordinance is obviously needed, ASAP, considering that major
annexations are now being considered.
SCOPE suggests the following timeline:
January - City Council places this matter on the agenda, and directs staff to prepare a DMS
ordinance.
February - Staff presents the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for public hearing.
February - Planning Commission conducts hearings and takes public comment.
March - Staff revises/responds to public hearing.
April - Planning Commission conducts hearing on revisions and passes measure to City Council.
April - City Council conducts initial hearings, taking public comment.
May - Revisions and second hearing by Council.
i.Er1ER TO Cm coi,NCn. CONCOL1,MG DMS
June - First reading of final ordinance.
June - Second reading and adoption of final ordinance.
'[hat's it. After five years of neglect and delay, Policy 1.4 is finally implemented.
The Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element has an ' Implementation Section', which
delineates what the City has agreed to do to implement this element. It reads as follows:
The City believes in and is committed to the implementation of this plan. Whereas the goals and
policies of the plan establish the general framework for future growth and development, actual
realization of the plan can only be accomplished through specific implementing actions that the
City subsequently undertakes.
The primary tools with which the City should undertake to implement the Public Services,
Facilities, and Utilities Element of the plan include:
• Develop a growth management monitoring system and ordinance [emphasis added]
• Development and impact fee ordinance
• Zoning and subdivision standards
• Recycling and conservation programs
• Community facility financing programs
• Capital improvement program
• Community monitoring guidelines for toxic hazardous waste disposal transport and storage.
We agree. And we think you will agree that - after a five year delay - it's time to move ahead
and actually implement the General Plan. We request and look forward to the Council placing this
matter on the agenda as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
A�40�e
Michael A Kotch, President